Has the house done this in a formal HEARING manner?
nope
That is what you are missing, quite on purpose I fear
Refuting
1 is not "missing."
Staffers are more than capable of drafting articles and pulling together materials and scheduling relevant testimony. They could start Impeachment Hearings to make the case, nail down articles, and vote them out of committee in days. Everything necessary to make at least three different cases for impeachment is public record. The House just needs to make one case.
The only thing stopping them is their self-imposed "off the table" edict.
Bush and Cheney are determined to grab and hold the fascist powers we denied Nixon's crew. Breaking the Constitution is their means of achieving their ends. They will go as far as we allow them to for as long as we let them. They are openly and willfully attacking the Constitution in plain sight because breaking it is their intent. They confess to nullifying the Constitution every time they assert the fascist fantasy of a unitary authoritarian executive. Nothing short of impeachment will cause them to even miss a beat.
The house is your grand jury and all the evidence you have right now, is hearsay insofar as how it works LEGALLY and by PRECEDURE is concerened
Not true.
In an impeachment there are no "legal standards" outside the intentionally vague guidance provided by the Constitution. Impeachment is a political process, not a legal process.
What is or is not "impeachable," and what threshold of proof to apply, is completely up to each Member of the House to define for themselves. They employ whatever criteria they personally judge to be appropriate. They could impeach for incompetence. All that is required is the political will.
In the case of Bush and Cheney, War crimes committed at Guantanamo under their orders have already been adjudicated in Hamdan -- all the way up to the Supreme Court. Therefore, a Member who mistakenly applies inappropriate legalistic standards cannot legitimately claim that those standards have not been met.
Whatever criteria or threshold a particular Member might be inclined to employ, the process is a dynamic one. They lobby each other. We lobby them. That's the name of the game. The process "required" to get a set of articles to a floor vote is completely up to the House as a body to define.
From
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/pat_k/20">Lobbying for Impeachment: Take along a Big "Clue Stick" !
One of the biggest barriers to impeachment, both inside and outside the beltway bubble, is the widespread, wrong-headed, legalistic view of it.
Clue Stick 1: The Purpose of Impeachment. - They are Congress, not the Courts. Had we intended impeachment to be equivalent to a criminal prosecution, we would have vested the power in the Courts, not Congress.
- Impeachment is a political process, not a judicial process.
- Impeachment is defensive; not punitive.
We charge Congress with the duty to defend against threats to the Constitution. Impeachment is the weapon we gave them to remove a threat by removing an official's power to harm. This is the first, and most urgent, priority.
Retribution for violations of U.S. Code and International Law is for the Courts (both here and at the Hague), not Congress.
- Impeachment is bound only by the intentionally vague guidance provided by our Constitution; judicial processes are bound by our substantial body of written law and precedent.
Members of Congress must make a personal judgment grounded in moral principle and their understanding of the intent, not the letter, of the law. There are no legalisms or complex 'technicalities' that can trump reality. They must be guided by their oath and their conscience.
Members of the House must decide for themselves what constitutes an impeachable offense. The House as a body defines the what steps are necessary or unnecessary to impeach. Senators decide for themselves whether articles of impeachment transmitted from the House merit impeachment, and what standard of proof to apply.
- The interests that an impeachment seeks to balance are very different from the interests that a criminal prosecution seeks to balance.
- In a criminal trial, the standard of proof seeks to strike a balance between mistakenly:
- depriving a citizen of their rights
- releasing a guilty individual
When balanced against the sanctity of our civil rights, the risk of releasing a guilty person loses.
To tip the scales in favor of protecting civil rights, a very high standard of proof is applied (beyond reasonable doubt).
- In an impeachment, the standard of proof seeks to strike a balance between mistakenly
- depriving an official of the privilege of power
- leaving power in the hands of an official who is subverting the Constitution or otherwise abusing that power
Each Senator must decide for themselves what standard to apply, but when balanced against the sanctity of our Constitution, the risk of mistakenly depriving an official of the privilege of power should lose, particularly when you consider that power is granted to elected officials; it is not a basic civil right.
To tip the scales in favor of protecting the Constitution, a lower standard of proof is required (e.g., probable cause, preponderance of the evidence). When Members of Congress, opinion leaders, or fellow citizens assert that a higher standard applies, we should challenge them whenever possible.
In the case of Bush and Cheney, we have proofs that meet a standard much higher than impeachment calls for.
When we recognize the purpose of impeachment, Clue Stick 2 becomes crystal clear.
Clue Stick 2: Impeachment has been a moral imperative for years.
Bush and Cheney demonstrate their willful intent to nullify the Constitution when they assert the fascist fantasy of a "unitary authoritarian executive" that can break the law at its whim.
In their attack on the Constitution, Bush and Cheney are blatantly committing grave violations of law that go far beyond impeachable. They have committed crimes that are subject to the penalty of death. Namely, war crimes under U.S. Code (Title 18 section 2441) and international law and the Anti-Terrorism Act (Title 18, Section 844 paragraph e. Bomb Threat -- "mushroom clouds in 45 min").
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/pat_k/20">More. . .
Look, the fact is that as things stand right now, Bush could kill a baby on national Teevee, on prime time, and he would still not be removed from office RIGHT NOW.
They could act tomorrow and have Bush and Cheney out in a couple days. Or they could manage to hang on until the end of their term.
Things will play out how they play out.
The only thing Members of the House are bound by oath to do is Impeach Now.
If Members believe Bush and Cheney are attacking the Constitution they must accuse/impeach to fulfill their oath to "support and defend." As long as they refuse to impeach they are telling the elected bodies, good government organizations, experts, and countless individuals who have accused and called for impeachment that they do not believe Bush and Cheney pose a threat to the Constitution. As long as they refuse,
they need to be prepared to back up that refusal by making the case that:
- the fascist fantasy of a unitary authoritarian executive is not an attack on the Constitution;
- ordering the NSA to conduct a criminal surveillance program is not an intolerable abuse of power;
- conspiring with other countries to establish CIA-run prisons, where abductees are held in secret and tortured, is not a violation of both U.S. Code Title 18, section 2441 (War Crimes) amd international law;2, 3
- crimes that are punishable by death are not grave enough to demand impeachment; and that
- it's fine with them that Bush and Cheney put torture "on the table" and thus removed our standing to object when parties to armed conflict capture and torture Americans.
I know facts are stubborn things... and as you were asked, where are you getting 17 Republcian Senators?
Answered in Post #59 when you asked it in Post #56.
Post #59
- It may not get to the Senate. See Post #33 for detailed argument.
- If it does get to the Senate, unless, unlike other humans, you happen to be omniscient, you cannot "know" the outcome. The only way to know how many will or will not be willing to defend the indefensible is to force them to do so.
- The Congressional oath to defend the Constitution trumps any fears they might have about the outcome. Impeachment is the weapon we gave them to defend against attack from within. Members of the armed services, who take the same oath, are duty-bound to go into battle when ordered to do so, even if they "know" they will lose their lives. We enforce that oath on penalty of death. Congress may not face the ultimate penalty for betraying their oath, but they are no less morally bound to "take up arms" (use their power to impeach) to defend the Constitution, win or lose.
Right now, they don't exist. . .
They can't exist until they are forced to choose -- i.e., until a specific articles of impeachment are before them and they are called on to declare themselves.
. . .once more hearings are held.
As I noted in Post #24 (Reply to your Post #23), conducting an "investigation" instead of an "Impeachment Hearing" sends a clear message -- and that message is:
"We don't have a case. We're fishing for one." In other words, opened ended investigations undermine the powerful cases that are already on the record.
In addition, failure to impeach/accuse right now, when the key charges are so well-known to the public and the proofs are at hand, does nothing but give Bush and Cheney cover (i.e., "If Bush and Cheney were violating the Constitution; the Members of the House would be calling for impeachment. Not only aren't they calling for impeachment, they've taken it off the table. Therefore, Bush and Cheney are not violating the Constitution.")
. . .and more pressure comes from the American people they will materialize, perhaps.
Despite the 100% anti-impeachment propaganda that has been coming from all quarters of the beltway establishment for years (Repubs, Dems, pund-idiots, "strategerists"), they've only managed to get 44% of the electorate to say "impeachment should not be done at all." And 51% said they want impeachment to be a priority in the new Congress. (Newsweek Poll,
http://january6th.org/oct2006-newsweek-poll-impeach.html">21-Oct-2006).
More recently, Newsweek found that a whooping 58% "personally wish that George W. Bush's presidency was over."
4If, before they even started any other undertaking they had so much support, and so little opposition, they would be jumping for joy. To have such numbers despite relentless efforts to suppress support and increase opposition puts the lie to any claims that there isn't enough public support. If they lift the ban on impeachment and actually make the case for it,support for impeachment has only one way to go: Up.
If you would like to see more pressure come from the American people, perhaps you should ask yourself why you are so determined to convince others to shut up about it by declaring that impeachment just ain't gonna happen or claiming that they
can't act now -- that they must wait for X or Y, when the truth is that there is nothing but their own refusal to do so that stands in the way of impeaching Bush and Cheney within days.
. . but the reality is... they have less then eight months for this. . .
Time could be much shorter than that. Bush and Cheney could start WWIII tomorrow. The overwhelming increase in the number of people who would be happy to see another terrorist attack somewhere in the United States -- and the geometric increase in the number of people willing to make it happen, could bear fruit tomorrow.
Which is why all the wrong-headed rationalizations for delay must be challenged and rejected. We must do everything in our power to enlist others in the effort to lobby the House leadership to move now to and vote out whichever charges they can get consensus on the quickest. They can always follow up with another set if the Senate fails to convict on the first set. Bush and Cheney have blatantly committed so many acts that demonstrate they are intolerable threat to the security and integrity of our constutitional democracy that the House could easily vote out a new set of articles every week.
. . .since NEITHER party wants to hold impeachment hearings in 2008
So? Who cares what they want? We elected them to represent our common interests, not the other way around. This is about us -- our efforts to wake them up to their inescapable duty. We know they are currently refusing to get serious about impeachment, and we therefore need to ask them why they are not acting so we can challenge their rationalizations, but other than finding out and challenging what's stopping them, their personal desires in the matter are not our concern.
I also said that if the perception is out there that they have done nothing. . .
There is no magic solution to rule by signing statement.
Even insiders like Craig Crawford are seeing the reality -- that as long as they are unwilling to impeach, they are impotent.
5. .then they will rightly so loose power.
That's the song our so-called Democratic "leaders" were singing when they refused to impeach Reagan and Bush for Iran-contra.
In 1987 they were absolutely sure that they would sail straight into the WH if they just kept their heads down, steered clear of impeachment, and tried to "get things done."
6They convinced themselves that Reagan and Poppy Bush would be "too damaged" by the Iran-Contra investigations to be a force to reckon with, and then they imposed limits on themselves that guaranteed the investigations wouldn't damage anyone at the top. (Heaven forbid, they might find out something that would require them to Do Something.)
Completely predictably, the Democratic leadership failed to "get things done." They were not just repeatedly steamrolled by Reagan and the Republican minority, they watched helplessly, mystified, as Poppy -- undamaged by the Congressional slap on the wrist -- snatched the WH from their waiting hands.
"Can't seek truth because we need 'to get things done'" was also the same song Clinton and Co. were singing to rationalize their refusal to go after Poppy for abusing pardons to obstruct justice and cover the criminal acts that he and his co-conspirators committed in Iran-contra, or to dig into and expose the truth about Iraqgate and the October Surprise.
7 The tragic irony is heartbreaking. If he had thought less about 'getting things done' and more about exposing the criminal syndicate at the heart of the Republican Party he would have opened door to actually getting things done -- big, meaningful things that could have actually changed the lives of struggling Americans for the better. Instead, he was barely able to 'hold the line.'
Our so-called Democratic leaders are posed to make the same devastating mistakes -- unless we can get through to them.
.And I mean the perception part, . .
Substance always trumps perception.
It is
never "good politics" to be complicit in crime. Such immorality always exacts a very high price. Members of the 110th Congress need look back no further than their refusal to stand and fight to defeat the Authorization to Use Military Force. If they had successfully voted it down, or filibustered it, they would have saved the nation and the world the ever growing human costs of Bush's war of aggression. Had they failed, they still would have won. They would have been on the right side of history, instead of the wrong side. They would have escaped the political costs that both individual Democrats, and the Party as a whole, have paid, and will continue to pay, for that betrayal.
Something that Democrats need to get is that leaders who fight for principle only when it is "safe" earn the contempt of the American people, while those who fight for principle, even if it is a "charge of the light brigade, even if it is for wrong-headed principle, earn the respect of the American people.
Of course, if perceptions are your primary concern, consider this: If the Dems once again betray the nation and refuse to impeach, They are not just betraying their oath; they are failing to deal with the Democratic Party's Number 1 and Number 2 problems -- i.e., the perception that Democrats are weak and their failure to define overarching principles that inspire. If they refuse to impeach, they are passing up an unprecedented opportunity to demonstrate strength and principle and to define themselves as the Party of the People's Government and the Constitution.
after all our wonderful medial has forgotten to tell you just how many hearsings have been held so far, last count over fifty.
The only hearings that will get the media's and the public's attention are Impeachment Hearings. The cable channels will jump on the chance to fill air time with the "constitutional crisis." They'll try to make it a spectacle. Create drama if it isn't dramatic enough for them. They'll elevate heroes, destroy villains.
And in the process, as long as the Dems are crystal clear about their purpose, then the coverage will serve to inspire and engage. It will be a drama. The dramatic rise of the People's Government and the fall of the decider's.
____________________________________
- You asserted this in Post 23. I refuted in Post 24.
- http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6360817.stm">EU endorses damning report on CIA, BBC 2-Feb-07
- REPORT on the alleged use of European countries by the CIA for the transportation and illegal detention of prisoners (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/comparl/tempcom/tdip/pe382246.pdf">Final Report, 26-Feb-07)
- Newsweek Poll, 27-Jan-07
"At this point in time, do you personally wish that George W. Bush's presidency was over, or don't you feel this way?
58% Yes, wish it was over
37% No, do not
5% Don't know/refused
Note: The question, "do you personally want it over" strips out all the impeachophobic rationalizations, and thus captures the actual level of support for impeachment.
- http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=274624&mesg_id=274624">Impeachment or Bust --Craig Crawford
- http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F40717F8355E0C7A8CDDA10894DF484D81">Limits of Power: How the Democrats are Kept on the Defensive, by Linda Greenhouse, NYTimes, 9-Aug-1987 (emphasis added)
. . .
The Democrats who now control both Houses of Congress for the first time in the Reagan era learned that winning the majority was not the same as winning the power to control events, or even to shape them. Time after time, the Republican minority has demonstrated that being out of power need not mean being out of political instincts. President Reagan, weakened by foreign policy scandal and his lame-duck status, has nonetheless refused to slide into the irrelevancy that Democratic leaders keep predicting for him.. . .
The Power of the Veto
. . .Congress earlier this year voted to make the fairness doctrine legally binding, but was unable to override a veto, leaving the F.C.C. free to act. . . .
Filibusters, as well as vetoes, have left Senator Byrd seething with frustration. . .
On foreign policy, opinion polls showing that the public has more confidence in Congress than in President Reagan. . .
Yet Congress remains all but paralyzed in foreign affairs, unable to translate deep disquiet over Reagan Administration policies into coherent initiatives of its own. The sustained Congressional uproar over the Administration's actions in the Persian Gulf ultimately produced nothing more than a few nonbinding resolutions. . .
It is as if Congress, while rejecting the messengers, has internalized the message that a stream of witnesses delivered to the Iran-contra committees: the inevitable primacy of the Presidency in a ''dangerous world.'. . .'
- http://baltimorechronicle.com/2007/022407Parry.html">The Clintons’ Real Trouble with Truth, Robert Parry, Boston Chronicle, 23-Feb-2007
. . .
Special prosecutor Lawrence Walsh was still battling the cover-up that had surrounded the Iran-Contra scandal of the 1980s; Democratic congressmen were digging into the “Iraqgate” scandal, the covert supplying of dangerous weapons to Iraq’s Saddam Hussein in the 1980s; and a House task force was suddenly inundated with evidence pointing to Republican guilt in the “October Surprise” case, alleged interference by the Reagan-Bush campaign in 1980 to undermine President Jimmy Carter’s efforts to free 52 American hostages then held in Iran.
Combined, those three investigations could have rewritten the history of the 1980s, exposing serious wrongdoing by Republicans who had held the White House for a dozen years. The full story also would likely have terminated the presidential ambitions of the powerful Bush family, since George H.W. Bush was implicated in all three scandals.
After winning in November 1992, however, Bill Clinton and the leaders of the Democratic majorities in Congress didn’t care enough about the truth to fight for it. Heeding advice from influential fixers like Vernon Jordan, Clinton and the congressional Democrats turned their backs on those investigations. . .
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
